Telegram-herald., 1887-07-23
FULTON STREET PARK
n 5 owNs0 WHOLLY 81 THs CITY
Ealssz Ja4xs Barilaxsals = WEe1s "a
ais Dsefsissa - fhs E@,es - fhes- z.
sAslsiau aa1 ls7 - FaE1i1Ad
Axaas s.ss tay.

there.ars printed la lg.i ls.oG. Ins decis-
,sn zas rs1lslsd Ia .ls elses * Geo. L.
Paataad sas Eaos. & sarldaa ana others
aea.ast tie c,fg la waieh the plaintiffs
clssmsl til.1 70 tAs south half 3f ga.-0a
Street Para. Il ths Ja.isas opinian - corsecs
tas entire square belongs % theeiEy. the title
% she n0fth aaif having bsea sel.led by a
dsclsi0n 81 ths Supreme Coart. IT, deciding
the cases YESTERDAY sae Judge said.
Insse are aca1ns 81 siectmsut brought
By cpmpla'uaafs - recover possession ~ a
portion ~ shs south nait ~ lac puDLe
square xu0Bn a. fae tei Roast. fzrk, ul-
DER cl1i.4 ~ ut.e ug heirs4ip ~ the one
e3-e agisi b. purchase re- s1s other.
IL Is ll1.-1ei ga fle part oi ths plaintiffs
tha. iass have tas proper uIie Of said
pfanises. anl IS enc d-.e tanr The citv 0f
trand kepias. fnst the public holds it by
botn desiicaf.1n aa1 stYerzs possession Tor
alorc ban aiieen years
lt . r0J necessary ior the Court 70 reyie.
oF even coma.ent upon the vast sm0uat Of
testimony IN the e4ae. aAieh Is lafgels
documentary ant easily accessible % al
wa1 dss 70 10 examine it and the Court
~iu only c0nuns Itself - a brief recap,gu-
isiiou or he tesiimoay as is bears upon
this case.
la the decision Of the Supreme Court In
Kent County vs. the Cl.y oil Grand RAPIDS.
Campbell e. j. ssys The north haf Is
ci44n;ed ny the city as Grantees OF Louis
Camp1u. wh0 owned he p.llted lands, and
sitsr tas county had as the c..g insist re-
Lnqgishsd suca Fxa.s a. is may have had.
s0l1 IS tO the eitF. Tie south half IS
claimed By TIE city hy dedication % public
uses. and against toth eily ald county Is
claimed. under tue original holders, as not
dedicated or. IL dedicated. relinquished.
The relirquahmsnl is claimed TO have
been made ont ~ aa Official removal OF the
county seat fsom the square and ac-
Qllescenee IN it. s1d it appears from the
svidsnce that .nce the removal or sale OF
tce court house aoolt ls5Z. IN the language
81 jud-e Campbell that no 0us supposed
TIE county seas had lot been removed from
tie square now IN controversy AT this
time, or earlier, SAYS Campbell, g. j., THE
whole square was taken possession OF by
the city as public grolncs. ffotA that
time ID this the city has claimed, improved
and possessed u, and isir DrcpOndernncs
ol evidences in this ease seems to the Court
toesfablsh suca fac
Another important fact that the proofs
sustain Is L1al the cits as had peaceable
control for over thirty years aud had been
IN possession nearly thai rme, and con
troll and possession not consistent with
uiis IN This sgi., "but IN this case the Gus
tody has been under claim Of right in the
city Itself There has been much testi-
mony pro snd con in regard - the kind Of
control ana possession that the city has
Exercised over this pask. the plaintiff claim
ing that tke city has exercised no active
coutr0i over Il until very recent date, not
bringing ir unCer the necessary fifteen
years limitation. To sBbstantiatc this DO-
sition. evidence has been introduced that
The planting Of crops and setting out OF
trees vas al done by paa.es other than the
city. and that IN nearly every case the city,
when asked for permission TO improve It.
has only given consent that it be done at no
expense % the city. Bot by a clear pre-
ponderanes OF evidence the facts appear %
pe thai Immediately after the county relin-
culshed its legal rights in this park the
city assumed cOntrc.. and from that dsv to
this al improvements have been done un-
Ger and by virtue 0f authority hrss OBJ
tanned from the city. Gad Mr. Gilbert. who
t.sfifes that he ca set i % BE piOwed and
soSed % cats and who caused toe
trees thereon g be planted. thinks
that the authority 90 90 so. was
drst obtained from the city. and
the actions OF the Common Council at
various times. from a remote date ID 20 the
present time. dxes The fact that they gave
BY 01ciai action authority 10 such citizens.
as were able aud desired - see this publi,
ground Improved and orDameatsd. author
fty "a 90 80. and although in the lauguaz,
OF one vitEesg, the city vas poor and IN
debt when these Improvements were made.
elt was o0s abe 90 maze any considerable
apnropfiat,ous Of money tor such purposes,
sili We and that la every case their per-
llissiln was asked and they took official
ection thereon. and IN some cases and early.
taeJ paid go tne painting Oi the ierce. and
a. they were able snd disposed. made other
smaller o. larger appropriations as they
seemed disposed % do. or Justified in doing
one hing n all others rhas appears not
e. al uncertain il that. for all these years.
rom the time 0f the Abandonment of these
grounds ov shs county. Up 70 very recent
Gate tners has heen 10 claim Of any rrht
whatever In the plaintiff IN this case or
those from whom thew assume o. have
derived Their present rizht TO possession.
Thar ths orr FINAL donors intended II a. 4
deiica.i0r - public purposes is sh0vn not
onlY by tanf in setiviv ia taxing sci al s0r
seCtr.1E possession thereof bus also ~
tss.r lcsisive sct.0n ia the sale - srreo.Irso-
lag nSopertT upgn re opocsite sides ct the
streets uCl.ang this PARK and aeri.iax 10
themselves CT taeir Successors al the Imam
Cia. and 0slier s,lV8ntazss that are the SON
comi.srls Co a beautiful perk IN their in
rieiiSte mi st.
For tairty years have these private par
ties slept mon their rights. II indeed they
have ever aad any since TIE original dedi-
csfion for Court House purposes. and The
public havs hsid adverse possession 0f these
grounds and made them what they are .
catzi8ul resort 90 a. our people ant
wholesome breathing ground IN she heart
0f a <rest city anl the Court feels that the
riNaai proofs in this csss are 20 weak
ss hearing gr TIER rizht % possession, snd
tne sgile8ea cf &c c.tr having bad actual
colnauei. visioie. notorious. distinct and
hostile possession too sfr0aE 10 Justify
Huai1f for tas plaintiffs. II IL claimed
flrfler ~ The defendant that until the
f.spas tc1 cf tEe r1atter Between the
cpHarv art tie citv recently decided
asa 1st Las crurtv that these plaintiffs
cii nct know 81 the existence ~ their
rights. ftfa may or m8~ nut te tls case
fut or- arg Isl rerfsin that II ev-r xinca
TIE erfc-nsl desiiearcn Tor Court House
rurposes thev have any rights therein
taas i,oss rights attached AZ the tire of
tas sesurcnnent ev THE tcurfr about
fstA rea-T tb.rfyav veaTs aga. tt-t dur
for ueaf.v si these wears ns lef tae Disin-
frts nor their ursdercvorz tnek anv action
10 the premises ana i1 tie ianeusFs of the |
Silpr~ue Jcure WITH reference 70 The
rrrntr's 5isira "e even IN such -sse
after nes1ir thirty vesr7 adverse possess ion !
.ia- = az : ''''' '' '''''' So . -
it. therefore. urisr al he evidence. ar
pears o tais I1nft. ia thc language ~ |
Judge Norse IA his 5issenfIng opiaion. IN |
fhe Aeaf loH0ir ve The City ~ Grand /
Asri5s caee. thst "tf wss certainly 1et3l- !
cate'i as soie,H1Ir ss rass.sls ~ ths pubiic /
for sstoe ceciie sUt b has teen 81 /
rerted and ased sy tee rubiic continuously |
= e since Fitli1uf ne irferisrsnce cf say /
trfeta rEafs ar eains - impsir /